A Defense of the Convention Caucus System in the Wake of the SD16 Primary

It is the day after the primary, and the results are showing a 1708 to 1437 victory for Alison Krueger over Mark Olson.  Well, I must admit I was not expecting that outcome.  So, I must congratulate Alison on her victory in the primary.  I congratulate you for refusing to fill-out the questionnaire for the convention, for signing a pledge not to run for the SD16 seat, and for breaking your word on that pledge and openly campaigning anyway.  I congratulate you for twisting the wording of that pledge in ways I haven’t seen since the dark days of the Clinton administration.  I congratulate you on the sums of money which poured into our district from those elitist big-wig liberal senators on your behalf and the slanderous statements they made.  I congratulate you for refusing any form of communication, including official certified mail, to establish yourself as the most inaccessible Republican candidate in this district’s history.  I congratulate you on splitting the MNGOP in our district.  I congratulate you on your future loss in the general election.  I congratulate you for smothering the grassroots.  I congratulate you for lying until your pants burst into flames, for betraying the trust of the duly elected delegates who dedicated no small sum of time to contemplate their decision carefully, and for trashing a caucus-convention system that has been the heart and soul of Republican politics.

This is precisely why Republicans should have fought harder against the introduction of the primary system in Minnesota.  When this nation was being established by those humble pillars of greatness we refer to as the founding fathers, they were familiar with an effective system of choosing a candidate.  In fact, it was originally the method designed to elect the executive of the United States of America.  This system was one which ensured only the best candidates would succeed, but it also ensured that the worst candidates could not simply print a lie or two in the papers only to prevail in a general election.  They reasoned that if neighbors would be able to elect neighbors to deliberate on their behalf as delegates, the voice of the people would be represented.  Theses delegates were charged with the responsibility of representing their closest neighbors.  These delegates would in-turn elect other delegates to represent the area, and these delegates chose delegates and so on.  This would continue until the last convention where delegates would hear arguments for and against candidates, evaluate qualifications and character, and even spend time in prayer and reflection before casting a vote on behalf of those countless neighbors each represented.  This system exists in a similar form today, only similar since the system is in use for the Republican Party.  It is the caucus-convention system.

So, the benefits of the caucus-convention system are that it maintains fair representation of voters and ensures that any decision made is not done so on any whim.  Decisions are deliberate and very well educated as delegates invest huge amounts of time to carry-out their function.  It has been a successful approach of maintaining self-government despite the heavy presence of a dominant two party system.  This is the system that has served Republicans well.

Now, I have heard republicans in the last week, even from within our party, calling for the abolishment of the caucus-convention system to be replaced by the primary alone.  Now, the primary system is one pushed very hard by the DFL for a very good reason: because it makes it easier to lie and get away with it.  Think about that for a second.  People go in mass to polling stations, and they are, many times, voting on the basis of a single newspaper article or two campaign signs in someone’s yard.  Maybe someone heard a good zinger from a candidate on the way to the polling place as the driver just decides who to vote for.  Maybe they hear the DFL’s promises for free healthcare, school, or maybe a car for every family and say in response, “Hey, I’d like that, I’ll vote for that person.”  Think about it again.  The DFL pushes the primary system over the Republican favored convention-caucus system as it plays better to socialist “free-bee” agendas and renders lies as legitimate, effective campaign tools.  I note that the primary system does no better a job of representing the will of the people in a certain district than a convention.  Anyone with a bachelor’s degree should know that in an instant, and most other folks get that too.

So there we have it, two different systems.  But wait a second!  We are missing one more piece of the conversation.  What if we were clumsily using BOTH systems like in the September 9^th primary?  Well, first of all, with the awkward position of having an MNGOP endorsed candidate off the ballot and non-endorsed candidate on the ballot, it becomes unclear to folks.  I mean, it is rather awkward.  Mark Olson still stands as the MNGOP endorsed candidate while Alison has a primary victory under her belt.  Mark Olson won a 2 to 1 victory at the convention and Alison Krueger won a primary with 54.3% of the vote to 45.7% for Mark Olson (yep, close).  So, how do we sort this out? 

Refer back to the benefits of the convention-caucus system: the assurance of deliberative and careful decisions made by delegates on the behalf of their fellow citizens.  And remember the benefits of the primary system: the legitimization of the use of lies as campaign tools, large pools of voters “pulling the lever” without deliberation or education, and the ability to sway voters easily with as little as a clever slogan (maybe redundant to the previous point).  It should be clear by now that the caucus-convention system is far superior to the primary system.

As delegates walked into the SD16 Endorsing Convention over a month ago, no one really knew who this Alison Krueger was.  Mark Olson, on the other hand, almost everyone knew.  His face had appeared in newspapers and on television for months and months prior.  “Maybe,” some thought, “now is a good time for some change, maybe we ought to give this Krueger gal our support.”  Well, many sentiments changed that night as delegates deliberated carefully on both choices.  After hearing Mark’s speech, I think many had warmed to him again.  But what stood-out to everyone there was the oddly angry and empty oral stumbling of what at first glance appeared to be a confident woman.  By the time she was finished with her Q&A time, where she failed to substantively address the questions asked, the deliberating delegates decided she was too dangerous to place on the ballot as an endorsed Republican. 

Switching gears, the convention is over.  However, just days following the convention, Alison began campaigning, accruing outside support from the Senate Republican Caucus and Senator Norm Coleman.  What commenced was a barrage of malicious lies mischaracterizing Mark Olson’s career, his personal life, his court issues, and even his conservative voting record.  Blogs, activists, and Krueger’s hacks spewed material trying to paint Olson as a big spending liberal who was really pro-choice (absurd, isn’t it?) among other things.  All of this after Alison signed a pledge promising she would not run for the SD16 seat.  So, she lies and lies, and folks like me try to explain her lies only to be attacked by all sorts of confused and/or vicious people.  Few have wanted to listen, and many did not heed what I and others have been saying.  As a result, many across the district, buying into the lies of senators, the media, and Krueger’s campaign, voted on the basis of little information for a candidate they probably have never met.

You see, Alison looks great on paper, I mean she does.  However, a little time with watching how she works, watching her lie and backstab, would make folks much less eager to vote for her, which brings me to my point, my crux of this piece.  The campaign for the SD16 seat is an excellent case study as to why the caucus system is superior.  Whose choice, whose decision do we regard as more substantive: the caucus-convention system or an open primary?  Refer to what we’ve talked about, and think about it for a second.  Think of all the lies this woman has told in contrast to the politically inadvisable openness and honesty of Mark Olson.  Really think about that.  Do you trust folks who voted on a whim based on one lie in a paper or some flier sent by liberal Republican RINOs, or do you trust the deliberative and educated decision of delegates?  Both bodies of decision represented Republicans of SD16 (I would mention that the convention goers are also active in the party in addition to being educated on candidates).  Now, I don’t know about you, but it seems clear that the decision of the convention should be held in higher regard than the DFL’s primary system.

This is a crucial point since we still have two Republicans: Alison Krueger- the DFL primary endorsed candidate, and Mark Olson- the SD16 MNGOP Endorsing Convention candidate.  In an awkward demonstration of the horrible primary system, we have an endorsed Republican write-in candidate.  Strange, isn’t it?  Now, when you folks out there who still finally get the message that Alison is a lying scumbag and Mark Olson is anything but, you may find yourself with an Olson sign in your yard after all. 

It’s a bad situation for the MNGOP, and Alison Krueger has made it impossible to unite.  Why?  Well, let’s assume that the BPPOU of SD16 decided to shake hands with Krueger and say “let’s all get along.”  Two problems arise.  First, she is not the endorsed candidate of the Republican Party, which means that if the BPOU did not uphold the SD16 convention’s decision for Olson, they would delegitimize and destroy the caucus-convention system along with their own body.  They would be saying to the delegates, in essence, “Screw you, we don’t want your careful decision.  We don’t care about the time you spent to come to a convention, even though it was far more time than it takes to fill-in a circle in a booth.  Sorry, we don’t care about what you local citizens have concerns about.  This is a campaign, and as such we need to unite so we can keep this seat in GOP hands at all costs, integrity and grassroots be dammed.”  It’s true.  That is what the message would be.

The BPOU is honor bound to defend the grassroots, the caucus-convention system, and the pledge voluntarily signed by candidates which has been so maniacally violated.  Republicans cannot let someone with such huge faults in integrity represent us as a Republican.  Alison is out of touch with folks in our district and is merely gaining support with lies and big money from big-wig RINOs- something, like an eastern Democrat. 

Remember that we as REPUBLICANS are not DEMOCRATS.  I am emphasizing the fact that we are not, despite persistent claims by Democrats, a “democracy.”  If you have taken a civics course or Poli. Sci. course, you should get that in an instant.  We are, in fact, a REPUBLIC.  It is a big reason why I started this blog.  Republicans believe in a responsible government where candidates for the privilege of public office are chosen under deliberation of representatives of citizens (i.e. delegates).  Republican forms of government and the caucus-convention system work to prevent the rise of tyrants or despots who may appear well-intentioned at first glance- Adolf Hitler may be the most glaring example in world history of the consequences of careless decision making.  The founding fathers certainly realized the problem of democracy demonstrated by the Grecian democratic system, where the aim of government and the officials serving it fluctuated violently with public opinion.  Imagine if we relied on polling for decisions today?  What if we removed a President every time his approval rating would drop below 50%?  Our government would collapse as the impulsive emotions of the masses could not be slowed by any institution.  Government would become a violent, ugly, and wholly inefficient affair.

The best way to preserve the grassroots of the party is by preserving the convention-caucus system as it allows the individuals to have a real voice as to concerns and questions of candidates/party officials (criticism of party officials is not afforded by the primary system at all).  It should be the system of endorsement that we the MNGOP should use.  The primary system needs to go, and the pitted battle between a primary winner and the endorsed candidate in SD16 will provide an excellent case study as to why this should be done.  If Alison Krueger wins in November, it will destroy the system which keeps power in the hands of everyday people.  Do not go along with those folks calling for Ron Carey to hand-pick all candidates (and there have been many Republicans saying just that). 

If the state party is given an ounce more power and we abolish the caucus-convention system, our state will soon look very similar to the USSR- and that is no exaggeration.  Want communism?  Support the primary.  You want Republicanism?  Support the caucus-convention system.  Freedom depends on it.